Religion of Peace

Archive for the ‘Conference Reports’ Category

“Political Islam is a greater danger than Hitler was”. Trento at the Assises contre l’Islamization in Paris

by Nidra Poller

Efforts to kill the anti-Islamization Congress in the bud not only failed, they provided an “excuse” for Agence France Presse to cover the event. An article in which the anonymous “journalist” admits that at least 800 people attended the all-day Congress, was headlined “Demonstration against the anti-Islam colloquium.” There were, reportedly, no more than 200 demonstrators. Apparently no high profile personalities led the charge against the anti-Islamization event, which was closely protected by a no man’s land of several hundred meters and a cordon sanitaire of policemen who, according to the AFP release, “filtered” people at the entry. So far the AFP release has been picked up by three of the four major national dailies: Le Parisien, Le Figaro, and Libération.

Paris mayor, Bertrand Delanoë and the 12tharrondissement police chief resisted pressure from a long list of leftwing parties and pro-Islamization organizations. However, two days before the event, the police department issued a solemn warning to organizers and speakers who, they claim, have been associated in the past with “initiatives” that disturb the peace. Agents present in the meeting hall would be attentive to any statement that might cross the line, for which speakers would be answerable in the French courts.

No solemn warning was addressed to the demonstrators. One of the participating organizations, Euro-Palestine, spearheads the BDS campaign here in France. Commandos film their illegal operations in shops and supermarkets and proudly post the videos on their site: http://www.europalestine.com/ Their call to oppose the “islamophobe fascists” on December 18thapparently didn’t generate much enthusiasm among their islamophile fascist fans.

Mouloud Aounit, president of MRAP [movement against racism and for friendship among the people], interviewed this morning on the highbrow France culture (state-owned) radio station, declared that “these organizations” –associated with the anti-Islamization Congress–have been belching hatred for Muslims on their sites. “We know,” intoned Aounit, “that violent words lead to violent acts.”

STOP RIGHT THERE. Isn’t this the point where the handful of protestors and the hefty audience of today’s momentous event come to a meeting of the minds? Let’s hear that again: violent words lead to violent acts. And the Islamization of our society is marked, precisely, by an intolerable level of violence. And this violence is fomented by the hatred of Others inscribed in Islam. The violent words preached in far too many mosques explain why Europeans are becoming “intolerant” of the craze for mosque construction. Oskar Freysinger, initiator of the Swiss minaret ban referendum, was greeted, according to the AFP release, like a hero.

Aounit was followed, on France Culture, by a police official who explained that the pork and wine street party planned for the Goutte d’Or neighborhood on June 18thwas banned because it was likely to disturb the peace. On the contrary, he said, the anti-Islamization Congress is held indoors. It is discreet. There was no big poster campaign. The document announcing the event is rather moderate. So authorities decided to respect the right of assembly and free expression.

Isn’t that the point? The other big Islamic issue this week is Muslim street prayers. Maxime Lépante of Riposte Laïque, major organizer of today’s Congress, has been posting videos of the prayers all year. They finally came to the attention of the general public when Marine LePen, daughter of the retiring president of the Front National, compared them to an “occupation” of our territory. (I’m covering this story for Family Security Matters here http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.8167/pub_detail.asp). A pork and wine street party in a [Muslim?] neighborhood of Paris would be offensive, but hundreds of prostrate Muslims praying in the streets of a [French?] neighborhood of Paris is not? Pork and wine are provocative but “allahu akhbar” isn’t?

For a variety of practical reasons I was not able to attend the anti-Islamization meeting… which is why I am here to inform you now, as the participants file out into a snowstorm. I will have inside information in the coming days. My attempts to follow the debates online were stumped but I see from readers’ comments on newspaper websites that many people were successful. I’m told that there were five thousand visits to the site.

And we can be proud that our friend Tom Trento (Florida Security Council) was quoted in the AFP release: “All the speakers focused on the ‘dangers’ of Islam. An American militant, Tom Trento, declared—according to the French translation of his speech projected on screen, that ‘political Islam’ is a greater danger than Hitler was.”

Speaking of “political Islam,” the UOIF is listed among the organizations that took part in today’s protest against the “Assises.” The UOIF is known to be a Muslim Brotherhood front.

We don’t intend to wait for proof that these guys are worse than Hitler!

I am delighted to be here in Paris, the birthplace of modern European secular governance. And I am especially delighted to have been invited here by Gandalf, who founded the Alliance to Stop Sharia. Gandalf has been instrumental in shifting the focus of the European Counterjihad from Islam as a religion to the evils of sharia law.

Have you been accused of being an Islamophobe? A nazi? A xenophobe? A bigot? A misunderstander of Islam (copyright R. Spencer)? Have you been verbally attacked by well-meaning friends who belong either to the Leftist/Liberal spectrum and believe in the Religion of Respect and Anything Goes, or who in principle agree with you, but are sooo very afraid for you and suggest that you stop what you’re doing to stay alive. (What does that tell us about the Religion of Peace?)

I think I can safely assume that most of you, if not all, have at one point or another been subjected to some or all of the aforementioned accusations. I can certainly testify to that. But I can also tell you that I have been hauled into court to face trial for saying what I believe is the truth; a truth that many, especially those of the ruling elite, do not like to hear. Sadly, it seems that in a discussion, when one side has no real argument, he or she resorts to personal attacks. “This woman [as if I didn’t have a name!], she is a hate preacher. She can’t say that! She may be right, but she can’t say that!” Can’t say what? That sharia law is contrary to any of our secular laws? That its legal provisions include gender apartheid as well as killing of those who leave Islam or exercise the right to free speech. That sharia prescribes amputation of limbs and crucifixion even though Article 5 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights postulates that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Well, guess what? That is precisely what was eventually found in the charges!

In fall 2009, I was asked by the largest Austrian opposition party to hold a three-part seminar on the topic of Islam and the Islamization of Europe. I did this by quoting from the Quran, the hadith, the sunna. I also quoted well-known Muslim politicians like Erdogan, Ghadafi, Arafat, or the former Algerian prime minister. Little did I or the attendants know at the time that a young journalist had infiltrated and recorded the first two seminars without my knowledge. The left-wing magazine then decided to report me to the authorities, who in turn charged me with incitement to hatred. Let me quote the relevant paragraph:

By virtue of § 283 of the StGB, a person is deemed culpable of incitement:

(1) who incites or instigates in a manner liable to jeopardise public order an inimical act against a church or religious community established in the country or against a group determined by their affiliation to such a church or religious community, or to a race, people, tribe or state, or

(2) who agitates against or insults in a manner defamatory to human dignity or endeavours to condemn one of the groups defined in para. (1).

The crime is liable to a term of imprisonment of up to two years.
The outcry among the ruling elite in Austria was ear-splitting. High-ranked politicians, bishops, rabbis, and imams were asked to comment about the contents of a seminar they had never attended. A well-known Muslim university professor, asked by the magazine to analyze some of my controversial statements, even came to the conclusion that I am just like Osama Bin Laden!

In a matter of hours, my personal life was turned upside down. Some of my friends distanced themselves from by asking me to stay away from gatherings where Muslims may have shown up. The media completely ignored me and found the story of a Kosovar family blackmailing the government into granting them humanitarian asylum, after the umpteenth denial of the same, more interesting and captivating. “We do not see the need to report the idiocies of this woman [again, no name],” one liberal left-wing newspaper answered a curious enquirer. What does it matter that the Kosovar family broke the law and that I merely quoted the Quran? You can’t say that!

Interestingly enough, instead of silencing me, the magazine’s questionable actions have made me popular. All of a sudden, many people were outraged by what had happened to me and wanted to hear my side of the story. However, no one in Austria wanted to hear me; it was the Americans who were shocked, which was not surprising given the provisions of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution guaranteeing absolute freedom of speech, something we Europeans are in sore need of. I was invited to speak at the launch of the Freedom Defense Initiative, at the National Conference of ACT! for America, both in Washington DC. I spoke in Berlin at a rally for the Citizens’ Movement Pax Europa, as well as at the European Freedom Initiative rally in Amsterdam. The Danish Free Press Society in Copenhagen wanted to hear my take on freedom of speech. Just two weeks ago, I conveyed to my Israeli hosts the importance of Israel in the fight against Islamization. And today I am here in Paris to tell you about my trial. I was not silenced, nor will they ever succeed in silencing me!

By November 28, 2010, the member states of the European Union were required to implement an innocuous-sounding legal provision known as the “Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia”, or, more fully, the “Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.” According to the final article of the Framework Decision, “Member States shall take the necessary measures to comply with the provisions of this Framework Decision by 28 November 2010.”

Why does this matter to the cause of free speech in Europe?

If you read the full text of the Framework Decision (which may be found in the legislative section of the EU’s website), you will learn that “Each Member State shall take the measures necessary… to ensure that the following intentional conduct is punishable”. Such “intentional conduct” includes “conduct which is a pretext for directing acts against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin.”

Based on what has recently happened to Geert Wilders and me — and earlier to Gregorius Nekschot, Jussi Halla-aho, and numerous others — we can all guess who will be punished under this provision of the Framework Decision: those who criticize Islam.

It was not until October that a court date was set for my case. I had to discover this fact in the press — in NEWS, the same left-wing magazine that brought the original complaint against me. I was not officially notified of my hearing date until several days later.

The evidence used against me at my trial several weeks ago was a transcript of a tape of my lecture, provided to the court by the same socialist magazine. It included words that were not spoken by me, and words that were not spoken in public, which therefore were not a violation of the law.

But my case is not really about the law. It is a political trial, and like the trials of Geert Wilders and Jussi Halla-aho, it is intended to silence someone who speaks out against the barbaric nature of sharia law.

Above all else, it is intended to discourage anyone who might consider following in my footsteps. The oligarchs who rule Europe are determined to prevent any frank discussion among their citizens of Islam and its legal doctrines.

These are the methods of a totalitarian state.

They are more successful than those of the Nazis and the Fascists and the Communists because they are accomplished quietly and peacefully, with no need for concentration camps or gulags or mass graves or the shot in the back of the neck in the middle of the night.

They are surgical strikes executed via our legal systems, and they are quite effective. Between the summary punishment carried out against Theo Van Gogh and the EU Framework Decision applied though our courts, there is no room left for us to maneuver.

We are systematically being silenced.

I am not a victim. I intend to stand up for what is right. I will defend what needs to be defended. Above everything else, I will exercise my God-given right to speak freely about what is happening. Freedom of speech is the single most important freedom we possess.

I am doing this for my daughter, and for her children, for those who will have to live in the world we are now preparing for them. I am doing what our grandparents should perhaps have done during the 1930s, when their own freedoms were under threat.

This is our time. This cup will not pass from us.

I am reminded of a passage in J.R.R. Tolkien’s famous trilogy, The Lord of the Rings.

It is an exchange between Frodo the hobbit and Gandalf the wizard, and it concerns the perilous quest on which Frodo and his friends have been sent.

Frodo says: “I wish it need not have happened in my time.”

Gandalf responds: “So do I, and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”

It is time for us to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.
In speaking these words, I might be subject to arrest. I could be charged under the provisions of the Framework Decision, and extradited to the country that charged me using a European Arrest Warrant, escorted by the European Gendarmerie.

This is not an imaginary scenario; it is a very real possibility.

It is true that only a few people are likely to undergo such an ordeal. But it only takes a few people.

How many people have to endure what Mr. Wilders and I are enduring before everyone else gets the message?

How many examples have to be set before the rest of the European population understands the new rules, and is cowed into submission?

And we must remember to whom they will be submitting in the end. They will be submitting to our successors in Europe. They will be submitting to our replacements.

We must remember that the word for submission in Arabic isIslam.

When there are enough Muslims living in Europe — and it doesn’t have to be a majority of the population, just somewhere around fifteen or twenty percent — we will be living under Islamic law, and not the laws that presently govern us.

We will no longer enjoy what constitutional rights remain to us now. Our rights will be completely prescribed and delimited by sharia. Women will become the virtual chattel of men. Christians and Jews will be driven out or forced to convert to Islam. Atheists and homosexuals will be killed.

The European Union would consider these words to be “hate speech”. Under the Framework Decision, they would be classified as “racism and xenophobia”, and I could be prosecuted for saying them.

But they are in fact the simple truth.

Anyone can verify them by studying history. Anyone who chooses can read the Koran and the hadith and the Sunna of the Prophet.

Widely available official treatises on Islamic law confirm that my description is not “hate speech”, but a plain and accurate reading of the tenets of Islamic law.

It has become obvious that to tell the truth about Islam is now considered “incitement to religious hatred”.

It is now clear that non-Muslims who reveal the tenets of sharia law to the public are “denigrating religious teachings”.

If we meekly accept these rules, then we are acquiescing in the imposition of sharia law in our own nations. And I, for one, will not sit silently while this happens.

I don’t want my daughter to live under sharia.

Our time is short. If you and I do not envision an Islamic future for ourselves, then we must speak out now.

If we wish to preserve the right to speak and publish freely, then we must exercise it now.

Over the past couple of years I’ve become a big admirer of ACT! For America. Brigitte Gabriel has created a well-organized anti-Islamization action group that operates at the grassroots level all over the United States and Canada. ACT has both a charitable arm and a lobbying arm, so they don’t just talk and fundraise and hold conferences — they have been instrumental in pushing important anti-Islamization legislation in various states. For example, ACT played an important part in the passage of Tennessee’s recent law forbidding the application of foreign law — including sharia — in the state.

It was a privilege to be invited up to D.C. on Monday and Tuesday to attend ACT! For America’s National Conference and Legislative Briefing in Alexandria and at the Capitol Visitors’ Center. It was especially gratifying to hear the presentation by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf, who is already well-known to Gates of Vienna readers. Elisabeth was there to help connect the American Counterjihad — of which ACT is the premier grassroots organization — with its counterparts in Europe.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was the last speaker of the afternoon, and gave a brief account of the accelerating Islamization of Austria and the rest of the EU, and why it matters to the United States. She struck a chord with the audience, and a lot of listeners approached her afterwards to ask questions and offer their assistance. One of my major goals is to help Americans understand why the European Counterjihad is important to the United States, and Elisabeth’s efforts are a valuable part of that process.

As a matter of interest, she has now been appointed the ACT! For America chapter head for Vienna — opening up a further line of co-operation and communication between anti-jihad activists in Europe and the United States.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The gala banquet on Monday night was attened by a real mix of patriotic Americans — young and old, well-off and middle class, entrepreneurs and lawyers and working people and retired folks. What we all had in common was an absolute dedication to resisting the Islamization of America.

Some of the toughest people present were women — Rep. Sue Myrick was one of the after-dinner speakers. All of them are well-informed about the inroads that Islam has made in the United States, and all of them wre determined to stop it from proceeding any further.
– – – – – – – – –
ACT! For America is organized locally, with hundreds of chapters nationwide, and over a hundred thousand members. One of the purposes of the banquet was to recognize and honor the various chapter heads who had made the long trip to D.C. for the national gathering. Full-time staff members were also introduced to the audience during the evening.

The functionality of non-profit organizations generally flows from the top down, so much of the credit for the success of ACT is due to Brigitte Gabriel herself. She is gracious and inspirational to rank-and-file members, giving them the credit they deserve and encouraging them in all their local initiatives. As a result she has assembled an effective national staff, both paid and volunteer, with a focus on legislative action that has generated real results.

Lisa Piraneo works full-time as a lobbyist for ACT! For America on Capitol Hill, so it fell to her to organize our trip to the Capitol on Tuesday morning. Despite the fact that there was a succession of floor votes throughout our session, Lisa managed to get seven congressional representatives to speak to our group and answer questions. The foolishness about Islam spouted by our elected representatives in Washington is often discouraging, so it was refreshing to realize that there are at least a few members of Congress who really get it. Regular readers of Gates of Vienna would have been pleased by what they heard in the auditorium that morning — every congressman who spoke used the same terminology and operated from the same knowledge base that we deal with here. Each of them is one of “us”.

First up was Sue Myrick of North Carolina, whose major focus was on border security. She spoke at length about the would-be terrorists who have been caught crossing our southern border. Their countries of origin include Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Yemen, and many of them have been taught Spanish in an attempt to pass as Latin Americans.

Lamar Smith of Texas — who recently went viral with a YouTube video of his questioning of Attorney General Eric Holder — was next up, and sounded a similar note about the dire circumstances on our southern border. He outlined what he called the “Rule of Five”: during the last five years, more than five hundred potential terrorists from five Muslim countries have entered the United States illegally.

And these are just the ones who have been caught — how many others are here? Where are they living? What are they planning?

Rep. Todd Tiahrt of Kansas spoke about his work on behalf of several pieces of legislation, including the “No Welfare for Terrorists Act” (H.R. 2338) — which makes sure that the federal government doesn’t fund the “rehabilitation” of any Guantanamo inmates that it releases — and the “Keep Terrorists Out of America Act” (H.R. 2294) — which is designed to prevent Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his ilk from ever being tried in civilian courts in the United States.

Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee spoke about the danger to the United States from Islamic terrorism, and the importance of our military in the fight against terrorism abroad.

Congressman Peter King of New York talked about numerous issues concerning the dangers posed by Islam in the United States. His major topic was the Ground Zero Mosque, and the difficulties that face its opponents in their attempts to stop it. He suggested that the most effective way to prevent the mosque from being built is to expose the two-faced imam behind it, and make public his sympathies and connection with terrorism.

I had never heard Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann speak before, and was impressed with her energy, her spirit, and her thorough grasp of the facts about Islam. She spoke at length about the grave danger of Iran’s nuclear program, and pointed out that anyone who ignores what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is planning has not learned the lesson taught by Adolf Hitler, who exposed his intentions in detail in Mein Kampf. She also described the foolhardy behavior of the Obama administration, which is actually contributing to the funding of Hamas.

Our final speaker was Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, who talked about the effect that the current economic crisis is having on our ability to deal with the threat posed by radical Islam. Like Ms. Bachmann, he stressed the severe danger of nuclear weapons in the hands of the mad mullahs of Iran.

Brigitte Gabriel addressed the audience while some of the congressional representatives were on the floor voting. She pointed out that her organization is non-partisan, and does not endorse any party or individual candidates for office.

However, she noted that she had invited both Democrats and Republicans to address ACT! For America. Seven Republicans showed up, and there were several others who planned to attend, but were held up by floor votes in the house.

In contrast, not a single Democrat was willing to speak to us about the danger to the United States posed by radical Islam.

It tells you something about the current ideological bankruptcy of the Democratic Party.

LTC (ret.) Allen West gave one of the speeches at last Friday’s Freedom Defense Initiative event, and it was a real rouser. This was the first time I have ever heard a candidate for national office say such things — exactly the same things I would have said if I had been on the podium. He uttered the forbidden words: “We are against something that is a totalitarian theocratic political ideology, and it is called ‘Islam’.”

As I mentioned earlier, I spent Friday February 19th in Washington D.C. at two events where Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was a featured speaker. The first was the launch of the Freedom Defense Initiative, which was organized by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. Elisabeth spoke at length about the hate-speech case mounted against her by the Austrian authorities, and also recounted some of her experiences living and working in Iran, Kuwait, and Libya.

Thanks to UAC, Elisabeth’s appearance at the FDI event is now available on video:

7: 14 I was extremely shocked and I went to my translator, our interpretor,

7:18 a very devout Jordanian, and I asid, what’s going on, I just found out that your prophet,

7:23 likes young girls? and he didn’t tell me that no, no no, that’s not true,

7:27: or he didn’t say yes yes that’s true, he said, stop talking about this immediately.

7:34: I never want to hear it again. Censorship. He didn’t want to get into it, I assume he knows,

7:44 or maybe he didn’t read the Koran, he was a Muslim in name?

7:48 But there’s no excuse in my opinion. So we’re still now, after Kuwait, in 2000

8:00 Like I told you, I still didn’t have enough, and I decided I needed to spend a year in Libya.

8:08 Of all places right?

8:18 I spent a year in Libya, a very long year I can tell you that,

8:21 and I was in Libya on September 11th.

8:28 I had my landlord, a Libyan storm into my apartment and say “the Jews did it”.

8:34 and I said yeah, right.

8:38 Libya was hard, probably the hardest I’ve ever experienced.

8:45: It made me a stronger person. It made me the person I am standing here right now,

8:51 otherwise I probably wouldn’t be able to go through this.

8:57 So I returned to Austria in 2001, finished my degree became an English teacher, a mom

9:08: I have a beautiful young daughter, she’s five years old,

9:10 and she’s the reason I’m standing here today.

9:13 In 2006 I read the book called Gabriel’s Whisperings,

9:17 and that changed my views drastically, it was written by an Indian atheist.

9:25 And the interesting thing about this book is, that this man uses only Islamic sources,

9:35 and it shocked me. It scared me and it shocked me and I felt very alienated and very alone,

9:41 because I all of a sudden got to grasp about abrogation, I learned about FGM,

9:46 how FGM is found in the Hadiths, and it explained Islam from the very beginnings.

9:54 The Moon gods, you know, the violence, like I said it scared me. I felt alone.

10:03 Well God is on my side, and in March I hoked up with the Vienna [fill in the name here] an association of academics,

10:10 that is very Islam critical, and they gave me a platform.

10:31 In October in 2007, I was invited to speak at the now infamous, Counterjihad Brussels conference,

10:37 and that sort of got me started in all of this.

10:42 I have to go to the European Union and tell you that there is,

10:44 a strong threat to the freedom of expression in Europe, with the help of the European Union.

10:54 Freedom of expression died on 9/11 2007,

10:58 when a peacefull demostration was forbidden by the mayor there.

11:05 Now my focus on all that I’m doing is freedom of expression,

11:10 because if you can’t speak, your silent and you’re dead,

11:15 and, you know, freedom of expression, who decides what to say, I do,

11:23 I decided, it’s my standards. I was brought up and raised in a friendly manner.

11:30 So I decide what is right and what is wrong, not somebody else.

11:36 I determine that.

11:38 The problem with the EU human declaration of rights, is that is sounds beautiful,

11:43 with the new Treaty of Lisbon we have this declaration of human rights.

11:49 But the last article is a problem because it says.

11:52 the declaration says the rights of expression and association are to be balanced,

11:58: against the values and interests of the community,

12:01: in achieving harmony. The community decides.

12:10 But who determines this balance? It’s those who are in control of the establishment.

12:17 The politicians, and the proponents and apostles of multiculturalism.

12:24 We also have the frame work, the EU framework,

12:27 and the resolution for combating racism and xenophobia,

12:31 and I won’t quote that because we are out of time, but it suffices to say,

12:35 that criticism of religion is racism.

12:38 Ok? Racism is no longer racism the way we know it.

12:44 But my daughter is growing up with a defitnition of racism,

12:48 that Islam may not be criticized because that is racist.

13:00 The political left calls me and others a hate preacher.

13:08 From the German (it’s hate preacher)

13:12 Now where do I preach hate if I say that I am

13:15 a mother and a feminist, a believer in human rights and not sharia law.

13:20 Where am I currently preaching hate when I say I’m a defender of democratic values,

13:27 or of freedom of speech and of conscience, of individual self determination?

13:34 And I will conclude by quoting Ralph Giordano, a German Jewish writer who says:

I will dare to say that I am deeply repulsed by the sight of shrouded women and that my repulsion is not directed at them, but at the patriarchal, religious system that compels them to be wrapped up. I will still to dare to say that I consider sharia–Islamic law–to be notoriously unlawful.
I will write and tell that the way it is in the name of cultural self-assertion, under the title: “Immigration is not the problem. The mosque is not the problem. Islam is the problem.”

Imagine the following: In May this year a well-known and highly accepted expert on Islam — notably a woman — was invited to speak in the Austrian city of Traun. The topic of her address was to have been “Islam in Europe — A Challenge to the Government, Society and the Church”. A group comprising members from religious and community organizations, including the Catholic and Protestant churches as well as Muslims, had organized the event, which was supported by the city of Traun. However, only five days before the event Omar Al-Rawi, in charge of integration matters in the Islamic faith community and member of the socialist party, strongly criticized the event. He wrote to the organizing committee that Mrs. Schirrmacher was a well-known anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim activist and that the city of Traun’s support was terrible. Due to Al-Rawi’s criticism the event was then canceled. Now, Mrs. Schirrmacher’s credentials are impeccable. Her book Women and the Sharia is considered a standard work, and she has held countless speeches and written articles in which she propagates the rights of Muslim girls and women. A well-respected German law professor and expert on Islam hit the nail on its head by saying, “I am very surprised that no one wants to hear her crucial arguments. She cites many facts and examples.”

Mrs. Schirrmacher was uninvited simply because one man deemed her unworthy of speaking. Did he even know what she was going to say? Did he care?

These happenings in May can be considered an assault on the basic right to freedom of expression and opinion. This assault was neither the first nor the last in a series of attempts by Muslims and Muslim organizations to suppress any kind of dissenting opinion, to suppress anything that seemingly goes against the teachings of Islam. Also contributing to the suppression of free thought is the labeling of anyone daring to speak out against Islam. “Islamophobe!” is the new battle cry. “Racist! Nazi! Right-winger!” We are none of that. The notion of Islamophobia — for which there is no agreed-upon definition — according to Roger Kimball is “a misnomer”, since a phobia describes an irrational fear. The fear of the effects of radical Islam is not irrational, but well founded. Kimball believes that we should actually speak of “Islamophobiaphobia”, the fear of and revulsion towards Islamophobia.

Attacking the freedom of expression and accusing critics of Islamophobia are part of a tactic referred to as “soft jihad”. We should worry more about this version of jihad, rather than the bloody version. Soft jihad uses and abuses the language and the principles of democratic liberalism not to secure the institutions and attitudes that make freedom possible, but to undermine that freedom and pave the way for theocratic intolerance (R. Kimball). Soft jihad, according to Barbara Kay, is law-abiding. It exploits liberal discourse and weaknesses in our legal systems to induce guilt about a largely mythical Islamophobia.

Let us examine the manifestations of both Islamophobia and the attempts to ban freedom of expression and how it is aided and abetted by the United Nations and the European Union and also some of its manifestations and particularities in Austria.

In spring of this year, free speech effectively died at the UN and, with it, around the world. The UN Human Rights Council caved in to a demand by Muslim member countries that religious matters, i.e. matters of Islam, only be discussed by religious scholars. Council President Costea explained that religious matters can be “very complex, very sensitive, and very intense.” Since the council is no longer allowed to discuss religious matters in depth, it will not do so. Period. Case closed. No more discussion about genital mutilation, stoning, or child marriage. None of this has much, if anything, to do with religion per se, but everything to do with Islam.
– – – – – – – – –
This discussion of religion has a long history dating back to the late 1990’s, when Pakistan introduced the first “defamation against Islam” resolution to the Human Rights Council. Although the title was later changed to include all religions, Islam remained the focus of these resolutions, which have passed not only in the Human Rights Council, but also in the UN General Assembly. In March of this year, the Islamic nations were also successful in introducing a change to the mandate of the UN’s special rapporteur on freedom of expression who now “reports on instances where the abuse on the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination.” At first glance, all of this may look and sound good. However, on closer scrutiny one realizes that defamation of religions is not about protecting individual believers from damage to their reputations caused by false statements, but rather about protecting a religion, or some interpretation of it, or the feelings of its followers. According to Angela Wu, an expert on international law, “Defamation of religions protects ideas rather than individuals and makes the state the arbiter, thereby requiring the state to sort good and bad ideologies. This violates the foundations of human rights rather than the individuals who hold the ideas.” What is worrying about all this is the fact that these resolutions keep passing, as they have been for the past ten years. This could help the concept of “defamation of religions” to become an international legal norm.

What about the European Union, one might ask. The EU prides itself in upholding fundamental rights as demonstrated by the creation of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights. The EU also prides itself in being at the forefront of human rights by making available to its citizens the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Again, all of this looks and sounds just wonderful, even reassuring, until one scratches the surface. According to its website, the agency’s areas of activities include the fight against racism, xenophobia, and related intolerance. What is meant by “related intolerance”? It is not explicitly stated. However, upon his nomination as director of the EU Agency of Fundamental Rights, Morten Kjaerum named rising Islamophobia his biggest challenge.

Honesty in dealing with the population has never been on the agenda of the EU. Again, the Charter of Fundamental Rights sounds innocuous until one takes a closer look. For instance, Article 11 of the charter grandly states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.” However, the legal explanations make more explicit what is meant by this freedom, namely that it is “subject to conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, for public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others.” In essence, there is freedom of expression in the EU, but it is a very limited freedom, a freedom quickly abused by those who do not agree with free thought. As Fjordman succinctly sums up, “The anti-discrimination laws in Europe come from a small group of appointed leaders who respond to pressures from the Islamic world, not from their own people. If native Europeans vote “no” to the proposed EU-constitution, they are immediately denounced and ignored. If Muslims say they want a total ban on “discrimination and Islamophobia” in Europe, they get it immediately.”

To emphasize the above, the EU has introduced a framework decision to combat racism and xenophobia, which punishes certain forms of conduct as criminal offenses, such as public incitement to violence and hatred or public distribution of material containing expressions of racism and xenophobia. Punishment must be “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”. Remember that criticizing Islam de facto falls under the category “racism and xenophobia”. According to the Council of Europe, European governments “bear a special responsibility to ensure full respect for the freedoms of thought, speech, and religion.” Governments are also asked “to develop guidelines to combat Islamophobia in the media.” The EU even offers a special media toolkit “to promote the principles of cultural diversity in TV programs.” It’s all there for you to grab paid for with your taxes if you want to be re-educated as mandated by the EU and the Council of Europe. More recently, the United Nations admonished Austria for not doing enough to combat racism and stereotyping. The UN report suggests adopting “self-mechanisms of print media”, in short, introducing self-censorship. And while both the EU and the Council of Europe introduce framework decision after framework decision on the rising Islamophobia and discrimination in Europe, not one piece of legislation covers the rise of Christianophobia. Discrimination against Christians in Europe is mentioned in passing by a member of the Fundamental Rights Agency board, focusing on intolerance and discrimination against Christians, but also against members of other religions.

The Fundamental Rights Agency takes advantage of member states by asking their national officials to do the work, with the added advantage that their cost is borne by the national taxpayer (Booker, North. “The Great Deception” p. 525). For instance, data collection reports on the local issues of fundamental rights are compiled, and thus its research paid for, by the Austrian taxpayer, through the so-called RAXEN National Focal Points (NFPs). In Austria, two institutions, the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights and ZARA (Zivilcourage und Anti-Rassismus Arbeit), compile this so-called data collection report. The 2007 report notes that no tendencies of Islamophobia were observed in Austria. As always, one needs to look closely for the real story. In this case it is found in the section called “Unofficial data and information”: “There were 37 cases of racist violence in 2006, where the victims were visibly belonging [visibly belonged] to an ethnic or religious minority recognizable by (…) a religious symbol, especially the Muslim headscarf.” The report furthermore notes that the “high vulnerability of Muslim women wearing a headscarf is striking”.

The current situation in Austria epitomizes the success of institutions such as the Fundamental Rights Agency and the Council of Europe. Eurabia is fully implemented and going ahead full steam. Interfaith dialogue between Christianity and Islam is one case in point. There is no questioning of the oft-repeated, mantra-like assertion that Christianity and Islam are Abrahamic religions, that there is a common ancestor, Abraham, uniting all monotheistic religions. Why are the visible differences in religious practice not raised? Reference to a “common ancestor” does not help us today to solve our problems in peaceful coexistence. In addition, Austria is forced to contend with the “Law on Islam”, introduced in 1912, which states: “The doctrines of Islam, its institutions and customs shall enjoy the same protection, unless they are in contradiction to state law.” However, the Quran has never been scrutinized for such contradictions! The Law on Islam and the Islamic Faith Community are considered the definitive problem solvers. Unlike members of other religious groups, those of the Islamic faith enter the political spotlight by demanding “integration by participation”. This means, according to one representative of the Islamic faith community, that although Muslims are not religiously defined, they do want more participation. The insistence on a more detailed explanation was met with accusation that the inquirer was an enemy of Islam.

The implementation of the Eurabia concept has permeated society as a whole. This is evident in numerous areas, such as the media, the sciences, the integration policies, or the schools. The media, for instance, either practices rigorous self-censorship or disinformation as well as deliberate non-information. The Austrian Broadcasting Corporation has been sugar-coating Islam for many years and routinely does not question Muslim claims. In one radio show the listener is not told whether or not Islam provides a foundation for terrorism. Another point raised was that the terror attacks in Great Britain were committed by British citizens. Why was the fact that the terrorists were naturalized Pakistanis neglected? At a conference of imams in Vienna, topics for discussion were, among others, how Muslims in Austria are continuously being excluded. However, it was not explored how acceptance can be expected if the Western way of life is rejected and Westerners are considered infidels. Euphemisms are used for Muslims: “Asian youth”, “südländisch aussehend” (having a southern appearance).

Integration policies are geared towards favoring immigrants over the native population. There is an official government agency — the Austrian Integration Fund — catering solely to immigrants and their “problems” by offering “effective, unbureaucratic assistance in finding accommodation, job-seeking or language learning”. Successful asylum seekers are even granted scholarships as well as other financial assistance to help them integrate into Austrian society. For those wanting to learn more about integration, the Integration Fund offers an “Intercultural Conflict Management” course open only to students with a migration background or those familiar with intercultural conflict. Integration policies, however, do not assert any claims on the immigrant other than softly forcing them to learn the German language. Yet even these free language courses — at the taxpayer’s courtesy — are deemed excessive by the Islamic faith community.

To conclude, there is a widespread and multi-pronged approach in silencing dissenting opinions. The European Union does not constitute a safe haven for freedom of speech; rather, it furthers the opposite by launching and instating countless programs to curtail this very freedom. We should not endorse what Senegal’s president Wade wants: “I don’t think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy. There can be no freedom without limits.” What we must stand up for every day is what Voltaire so famously said: “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” This would mean the right to say “I think Islam suspicious and dislikable” and “I’m sick of constantly being told that all religions should be considered equal and that the brutal Islamic behavior is our fault” without being labeled racist or xenophobic. This would be a step in the right direction.

Earlier this month the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) held a “Human Dimension Roundtable” in Vienna. One of the participants — a Counterjihad sympathizer — has prepared the following report.

Click the image above to see a full-sized map of the OSCE countries. At the bottom of this post is a list of those countries, as well as the mission statement of the OSCE. The original map of OSCE states (in pdf format) can be found here.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
and the Counterjihad

A report from the Human Dimension Roundtable, Vienna
July 9-10, 2009
One may wonder what the Counterjihad and an organization like the OSCE could possibly have in common. Before I delve into this matter, I will provide a short overview of the OSCE, as it is a rather obscure organization, especially for non-Europeans, despite the membership of the United States and Canada. I will also touch on how the OSCE processes work.

According to its fact sheet, “The OSCE works for early warning, conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation. The Organization comprises 56 participating States that span the globe, encompassing three continents — North America, Europe and Asia — and more than a billion people.” However, the OSCE uses the “d”-word: dialogue. The fact sheet calls it its “genetic code, in order to maintain security throughout its region.”

To be fair, the OSCE does its work in relative obscurity, “away from the headlines”, in order to defuse potential threats. The only time we hear about the OSCE is during elections, when monitoring missions are established, most recently in Georgia. The OSCE is also active in post-conflict areas, “helping to reinforce confidence- and security-building measures.” These measures include, among others, initiatives for minority rights, legislative reform, the rule of law, and press freedom.

The OSCE, like the EU, believes in Euro-Mediterranean partnership which includes countries like Morocco, Tunisia, and Jordan for further cooperation. All partners for cooperation, save Israel, were noticeably absent from the roundtable discussions.

The OSCE, or rather its predecessor the CSCE, was one of the main players in bringing down Communism:

The Organization traces its origins to the early 1970s, to the Helsinki Final Act and the creation of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE), which at the height of the Cold War served as an important multilateral forum for dialogue and negotiation between East and West. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 heralded the start of a new era for a “Europe whole and free”, and the participating States called upon the CSCE to respond to the emerging challenges. The CSCE acquired its first permanent structures, including a Secretariat and institutions, and established the first field missions. In 1994 the CSCE, more than a conference, was renamed the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

The Organization “views security as comprehensive and takes action in three ‘dimensions’: the politico-military; the economic and environmental; and the human.” It is precisely the third dimension — the human dimension — that brought down communism. The Soviets, through their participation in the CSCE, were gently led toward the acceptance of human rights, including freedom of worship:

“…[T]he inclusion of the humanitarian aspect was a victory for the West, including the neutral states….[A]t the beginning of the negotiations the Soviets did not even accept the use of the term “human rights” at the negotiations concerning the Declaration on Principles Guiding Relations Between Participating States, instead the word “penguin” was used. Finally they were forced to accept the human rights aspect on their territory as an “essential factor for peace, well-being and justice”. For instance, by accepting this the Soviet Union had to change its views on the suppression of its citizens of the Jewish faith as well as other minorities. The Soviet Union could not but free some of its imprisoned and persecuted dissidents […] As the Chairman of the United States Delegation to the Vienna CSCE Follow-up Meeting noted, “there were remarkable results”. By 1986, jamming of radio broadcasts had ceased, enabling citizens of all participating states to listen to broadcasts of their choosing. A significant number of Jews were able to emigrate from the Soviet Union. Freedom of speech and press censorship were also matters which were addressed as a consequence. At the same time over 600 political prisoners had been freed, dissidents had been allowed more freedom, worshipers form different religious faiths had won more tolerance. But not only the citizens of the Soviet Union profited form the CSCE process: in particular, citizens of both Germans states were finally able to visit each other (however, only up to 30 days per year), mostly to visit relatives.” (Source: university paper by ESW, “The evolution of the CSCE to the OSCE. Did the Institutionalization of the CSCE increase its Effectiveness — evaluation of successes and failures with emphasis on human rights and national minorities. 2002)

The very concept of freedom of movement for people, as established in the Helsinki Final Act, is what essentially facilitated the fall of Communism and marked the beginning of the end for bipolarism in Europe. What began in the early 1980’s in Poland with the mass protests of the Solidarity union, which was cracked down by the government, ended once again with Poland in 1988 the massive anti-government strikes forced the government to allow free elections in which the Communists were heavily defeated. These protests rapidly spread to other Soviet satellite states such as Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania. By the end of 1991, Gorbachev had resigned and the Soviet Union had split up into separate republics. Communism was not defeated but had defeated itself.

The OSCE is

“unique and innovative in several respects. Firstly, the concept of “sovereign and independent states and in conditions of full equality” was unheard of in an era of bloc-to-bloc confrontation. Secondly, while other negotiations embraced a rather fragmented approach to security, the CSCE endorsed a comprehensive view. Thirdly, unlike the United Nations Security Council, where decisions could be halted by vetoes, the CSCE’s advantage was consensus. Thus, the CSCE did not offer the two blocs a playground for power politics. Instead of ambiguity, the CSCE process encouraged transparency in all fields.”

In OSCE terminology, the term human dimension is used to describe the set of norms and activities related to human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, which is regarded within the OSCE as one of the three dimensions of security. The term also indicates that the OSCE norms in this field cover a wider area than traditional human rights law. (Human Dimension commitments, vol. 1, 2005)

According to its book on “Human Dimension Commitments, Vol. 1, 2005”, “the OSCE process is essentially a political process that does not create legally binding norms or principles. Unlike many other human rights documents, OSCE human dimension commitments are politically, rather than legally, binding. This is an important distinction since it limits the legal enforceability of OSCE standards. On other words, OSCE commitments cannot be enforced in a court of law.”

The OSCE’s office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODHIR), based in Warsaw, is the main institution of the OSCE for human dimension. It organizes “regular meetings that take stock of OSCE human dimension commitments and recommends follow-up. In all its activities, the ODHIR reaches out to a network of partners active in related areas, including international and local non-governmental human rights organizations.”

ODHIR organizes and hosts thematic roundtables to give civil society representatives the opportunity to draft recommendations for the OSCE and participating states.

The OSCE’s “Tolerance and Non-Discrimination and Information System (TANDIS) is worth looking into more closely, especially its brochure on hate crimes (pdf)

It is this consensus which was so extremely helpful in killing some “very poisonous” (Henrik R. Clausen) recommendations made at the Civil Society roundtable in July 2009. This is advantageous because if there is no consensus, then the recommendation is not carried and thus no longer an issue. Of course, this means only a very limited number of recommendations make it into the protocol.

These are the recommendations agreed upon in the Civil Society roundtable:

1.

Freedom of religion or belief should be mainstreamed in the work of ODIHR;

2.

Participating States are encouraged to implement existing commitments on freedom of religion or belief according to international human rights standards. Participating States are encouraged to make use of the assistance available from ODIHR;

3.

The rule of law should be recognized as an essential prerequisite for full and proper enjoyment of freedom of religion or belief;

4.

Participating States are encouraged to actively create an atmosphere in the public space within which freedom of religion or belief can best flourish and in which religious and belief communities can engage in full and fruitful dialogue. This space should be open to all, and the public media can play an important role in the creation of this space.

Some of the poisonous recommendations are listed below:

Cojep International (no link to Cojep’s press release is available, as they were distributed on paper) appears to be a very dangerous organization. It was represented by its Vice-Chair, Veysel Filip, who not only took the floor sharply criticizing the “Charter on Muslim Understanding” in an official statement, but also complaining about “the inadequate response of the German government to date given the nature of the crime (the stabbing of an Egyptian woman in a courtroom in Dresden)” and “urges the German authorities to publicly condemn the attack.”

Now why should the German authorities react by condemnation? Here is Henrik R. Clausen’s (ICLA) statement in response:

“(Regarding) the murder in Dresden: We have full confidence in the German law to handle this matter, and we emphasize that no such events, no matter how evil, should be used (and abused) as a pretext for assaulting freedom of expression or implementing draconic legislation.”

It should be noted that other than the official German representative to the OSCE, no participating state or organization except for ICLA, took the floor.

Cojep added that “Governments should ensure that law enforcement officers are trained to respond to and investigate anti-Muslim crimes. Public education efforts should promote tolerance and diversity and address anti-Muslim prejudice.”

A similar request was made during the Civil Society round-table meeting, namely for “sensitivity training in schools”, but this was quickly off the table thanks to ICLA and Pax Europa interjections.

In its recommendations, Cojep “has recently observed a sharp decline of funding for support of the Muslim NGOs which is necessary for them to attend OSCE human dimension events and make their voice to be heard. We would like to emphasise that in order to ensure a more balanced participation of all communities in the OSCE region, ODIHR [OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights] should promote the participation of Muslim NGOs more.”

There should be no public funding for NGO groups as this would undermine the credibility of an NGO’s status as a non-governmental group. Other funding is acceptable, but it hard to understand the whining of Cojep regarding a supposed under-representation of Muslim NGOs. There were plenty of those present at the July 2009 meeting.

With regard to hate speech laws (which are described in great detail in an OSCE brochure “Hate Crime Laws — A Practical Guide”), the United States Mission to the OSCE weighs in:

“Anti-terrorism laws or extremism laws are too often misused — sometimes deliberately — to limit religious groups. To cite two recent examples, new religion laws in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan appear to be aimed at keeping a lid on religious extremism. In practice, however, such restrictions on legitimate religious activities tend to enhance extremism. Among the groups labeled this way in some participating States are many Muslim groups…[…].”

The US Mission also quotes President Obama who “noted the importance for countries to avoid impeding their citizens from practicing religion in almost any way they see fit — for instance, by dictating what clothes a woman should wear.” As discussed by many commentators, this statement is truly poisonous when it comes to Islam.

However, the US Mission must be applauded for its statement on freedom of expression, namely that limitations must not be imposed unless there is a call for violence:

“Sometimes calls for religious tolerance or calls to respect others’ beliefs are used to justify limitations on our OSCE commitments relating to freedom of expression and religion. The United States believes that such limitations on freedom of expression, including religious expression, are unacceptable absent a clear threat of violence — governments should permit free expression to the fullest extent possible. In our view, the antidote to intolerant speech is not limitations on speech — even when it is admittedly offensive — but rather ensuring that our society uses its freedom of expression to discredit and condemn such statements, while nevertheless aspiring to a level of dialogue that is respectful and constructive.”

Though ICLA, Pax Europa, Mission Europa, and the Akademikerbund were invited to sign the Joint NGO Statement (Observatory for Religious Freedom, Spain; Alliance Defence Fund, United States et. al.; Paneuropa Union, Austria; Human Rights Platform www.christianophobia.eu, Europe; Evangelischer Aufbruch, Germany), we were unable to do so. There are some acceptable ideas included in the statement; however, other statements contrary to our ideas were truly problematic, even if the intention is noble.

For example, this statement was unacceptable:

“Governments must admit religious attire even in public places, except when paramount interests such as safety, public order or health compel to rule otherwise. Governments must recognize the wide extent and implications of the right of parents to the moral and religious upbringing of children, without any interference from political power and from official ideology leading to indoctrination. In sum, States must recognize religion as a vital source of moral behaviour which is beyond and superior to secular legal systems.”

Religious law must never be recognized as superior to secular law. This is where Muslims will applaud since this is precisely what Muslims believe: Sharia law is above any other law since it is Allah’s law. Thus, a clear “No” to religious law’s superiority to secular law.

The idea that of granting the parents the unconditional right to moral and religious upbringing of their children unfortunately opens the door to Islamic madrassas, widely known to be breeding grounds for religious indoctrination and brainwashing. While this — the parents being in charge of their children’s moral upbringing — might be seen as good and moral idea, Muslim parents must first renounce the problematic verses and suras of the Quran (see Charter for Muslim Understanding).

On the other hand, one recommendation can and must definitely be supported:

“To guarantee the availability of places of worship taking into account urban planning considerations, and the artistic, cultural, religious, architectural and environmental characteristics of the territory. A dialogue should be established with the local community and religions traditionally present in that area. Legislative regulations should distinguish between places used for worship only and places of worship used for activities beyond purpose of worship.”

Here is a (sometimes very problematic) list of recommendations submitted to the OSCE prior to the Roundtable for Civil Society:

Alliance Defense Fund (US):

Freedom of religion and freedom of assembly are complementary rights, with the former requiring the latter for actualization, maturation and perpetuation. A disturbing trend exists where laws regarding the establishment of places of worship for minority Christian religions are either illusory (because of administrative provisions making the operative provisions of laws allowing for the establishment of places of worship virtually impossible to utilize) such as in Turkey, or are non-existent such as in several of the more conservative Middle Eastern Nations (e.g. United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia).

Weg der Versöhnung — Way of Reconciliation (Austria):

FREEDOM OF SPEECH is the foundation and basis of success of every democracy. It is the basis of the dignity of the human being. The loss of the freedom of speech is the beginning of tyranny, as history proves. It is being severely threatened in the EU in our day by so-called Hate Speech and Antidiscrimination legislation.

Cojep International (France):

In Europe we observe that Muslims have been increasingly facing arbitrary and discriminatory restrictions on their right to manifest and practice their religions. The referendum process to ban the building of minarets in Switzerland and the recent law adopted for the same purpose in the Carinthia province of Austria are two examples of this worrying situation. Muslims are also concerned about intervention of their internal religious affairs, especially when they were not allowed to choose their own imams or muftis.

We would like to also recommend that ODIHR’s Panel of Experts on Religious Freedom should have a more balanced approach towards to all regions of OSCE and all religious groups and believers and non-believers. For this purpose, we would like to propose to ODIHR to include at least one expert with a Muslim minority background.

Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association (Iceland):

Repeal blasphemy laws.

Muzaffar Olimov (Tajikistan):

The ban on hijabs limits the ability of women to get education and employment and indirectly discriminates against women. In Tajikistan, where the economic status of women is lower than that of men, the ban on hijabs should be lifted.

Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians (Austria):

Radical political correctness and hate speech legislation may lead to a restriction of the freedom of religion as well as of the freedom of expression. We urge not to promote a claimed right not to feel offended which ends up in restricting the freedom of expression of individuals and groups, including religious individuals and groups.

Observatory for Religious Tolerance and Freedom (Italy):

The ODIHR should not consider violations of religious freedom against majority religions less serious than those against minority religions because such violations are serious per se and OSCE commitments are referred to majority religions as well.

The European Union is also represented in the OSCE, both by the current presidency (Sweden) and ECRI, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance. What follows are the most destructive passages from ECRI’s paper submitted to the OSCE (emphasis added):

ECRI considers that religious intolerance is a form of racism.

ECRI has taken issue with various forms of intolerance: harassment by the police and local authorities vis-à-vis, among others, “non-traditional” groups; violence against persons and properties perpetrated by non-state actors; and inflammatory speech by extremist politicians and media.

ECRI has also commented on the spreading of stereotypes and prejudice (on, for example, the limited possibilities of some religious groups to integrate); and even the contribution to the negative climate of the exploitation by mainstream politicians of issues such as forced marriages and female genital mutilation.

For ECRI there is no real dilemma between protecting freedom of speech and the fight against religious intolerance. There are cases where the demands of the latter will take precedence over the former. It should be noted in this respect that the Additional Protocol to the Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention takes to some extent the same position.

In its General Policy Recommendation on combating racism and racial discrimination in and through school education, ECRI has highlighted the need for an instruction which “complies with the scientific neutrality essential in any educational approach”.

ECRI has had to deal with religious discrimination in employment and housing. This targets, among others, women with headscarves.

Dialogue between the authorities and the representatives of religious groups but also between the different groups is essential in a multicultural society; also essential is the monitoring of the situation by the authorities, through a process of data collection that respects the principles of data protection and self-identification. However, multiculturalism should not be seen as an end in itself. What ECRI strives for is integrated societies. For us, successful integration is a two-way process, a process of mutual recognition, which has nothing to do with assimilation. An “integrated society” in ECRI’s conception is equally inclusive of majority and minority groups.

Just how dangerous the discussion on religious freedom can be becomes obvious if one goes back six years to a roundtable on Religious Freedom and Democracy, which took place in Rome in 2003, during the OSCE Fall Conference on Religious Freedom:

Ambassador Babacar Ba spoke on behalf of the Secretary General of the Islamic Conference, Abdelouahed Belkeziz, emphasizing the significance of Islam in the history of humanity and the values of tolerance and freedom it has always promoted, whilst denouncing the link between Islam and the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. Ambassador Ba stressed the positive relations between Islam and other religions, recalling how, historically, Islam had harmoniously integrated certain elements of previous civilizations. He made a link with the Mediterranean aspect of the Rome Conference by underlining the crucial role of the Mediterranean area in the symbiotic relationship between Europe and Islam. Quoting two verses of the Koran, Ambassador Ba underscored the openness of Islam. According to him, Islam has always been a good example of tolerance towards the Jews, the Christians and also nonbelievers throughout history, whilst discouraging forced conversion.

Ambassador Ba went on clarify the alleged misunderstandings pertaining to the debate on the compatibility of religion with democracy. According to him, Islam is not less compatible with democracy than other religions, pointing to the notion that the West did not inherit its democratic principles from any religion, but rather from its great philosophers. Moreover, he argued that the Islamic world is following the same path as the West by striving to institutionalize the same separation of religious institutions from the state. He emphasized the OIC’s commitment to the dialogue between cultures and civilizations in all its relations with international organizations, mentioning an initiative called the “civilization dialogue”.

We must, under all circumstances, continue what was started in July 2009. We need to shake up and wake up those willing to wake up.

Perhaps one day we will be able to say: The CSCE brought down communism; the OSCE brought down Islamic supremacism.

The OSCE works for early warning, conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation. The Organization comprises 56 participating States that span the globe, encompassing three continents — North America, Europe and Asia — and more than a billion people.

Forum for dialogue — platform for action

Europe faces new threats and challenges. The OSCE, with its multi-faceted approach to security, offers the region a forum for political dialogue and negotiations and a platform for multilateral partnerships that pursue practical work on the ground.

Dialogue is in the OSCE’s genetic code. To maintain security throughout its region, the OSCE relies on political dialogue about shared values and develops partnerships with governments, civil society and the private sector. The OSCE often works away from the headlines to foster discussion to defuse tensions and head off potential conflict.

The OSCE’s 19 field operations enable the Organization to tackle crises should they arise, and can also play a critical post-conflict role, helping to reinforce confidence- and security-building measures. They foster the administrative capacity of the host countries through concrete projects that respond to people and their needs. These include initiatives to support community policing, minority rights, legislative reform, rule of law, press freedom and border management. Increasingly, the OSCE is building networks of professionals to work more efficiently against terrorism, smuggling of small arms and light weapons, and trafficking in human beings.

From the Cold War to new security challenges

The Organization traces its origins to the early 1970s, to the Helsinki Final Act and the creation of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE), which at the height of the Cold War served as an important multilateral forum for dialogue and negotiation between East and West. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 heralded the start of a new era for a “Europe whole and free”, and the participating States called upon the CSCE to respond to the emerging challenges. The CSCE acquired its first permanent structures, including a Secretariat and institutions, and established the first field missions. In 1994 the CSCE, more than a conference, was renamed the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

The complex security challenges of the 21st century — from climate change to the spectre of terrorism — have made it clear that the co-operation fostered by the OSCE is needed more than ever.

These combine with the challenges inherited from the past — resolving conflicts in the former Soviet Union, embedding stability in the Balkans, promoting military transparency — to make the OSCE agenda ambitious and full.

One of the debating techniques commonly employed by the Left is to take a worthwhile principle and exaggerate it or invert it to create absurd distortions of moral arguments and force its opponents into a swamp of rhetorical excess, false analogies, and categorical errors.

Three examples should suffice as illustrations:

1.

Holocaust equivalence

If you are a leftist, virtually anything you disagree with is just like the Holocaust.

Control the borders? Holocaust Redux! Deny homosexuals the right to marry? It’s the Gay Holocaust!

One of the most notorious examples of the genre was the famous assertion back in the 1990s that reforming the welfare system was the moral equivalent of genocide against African Americans.

Any cuts in social spending are routinely depicted as a modern Auschwitz for poor people.

2.

The McCarthyism bogeyman

Whenever a liberal politician is confronted with his dubious past policies and votes, the “specter of McCarthyism” is spotted hovering over the political battlefield.

If a conservative points out a leftist commentator’s foolish and discredited paper trail, Joe McCarthy is said to be alive and well, conducting a modern version of the witch hunt for Communists.

Hollywood types are particularly famous for their McCarthy sightings. They consider themselves constantly on the verge of being blacklisted by the right-wing establishment, forgetting that they themselves are now the establishment. The Tinseltown Bolsheviks have been in the ascendant for so long that they fail to notice that they are the ones screaming “you’ll never work in this town again!” whenever a Hollywood conservative is foolish enough to out himself

3.

Crying “Censorship!”

If an artist who smears dung on crucifixes is denied NEA funding, it is termed “censorship”.

If a liberal talking head is interrupted on a TV news program, that’s “censorship”.

Deleting a leftist’s obscene blog comment is considered “censorship”.

Anytime a conservative viewpoint is expressed without giving equal or greater time to liberal arguments, then “censorship” has occurred. Not allowing leftist ideas to dominate public discourse “has a chilling effect on free speech.”

So much for the Left. What about Islam?

For the last eighty years or so radical Muslims have studied, absorbed, and adapted the ideas and techniques of the Socialist Left. As I have pointed out previously, the turgid prose of radical Islamic theorists is all but indistinguishable from that of orthodox Marxists, once certain key words and phrases have been substituted.

So it’s no surprise that Islamists have borrowed the rhetorical techniques of the Left. They are particularly adept at taking a well-known Western political principle, twisting it out of all recognition, and then reversing it to use against the infidel.

Once again, three examples:

1.

Freedom of speech

As CNN noted last week, radical Muslims utilize their First Amendment rights to proclaim their hatred of non-Muslims, to applaud the killing of infidels, to celebrate the coming destruction of Israel, and to support all manner of violent action against anyone who opposes the expansion of Dar al-Islam. They repeatedly approach the line between free speech and incitement, but carefully avoid crossing it.

The “flying imams”, in their legal action against the airline and airport authorities, were at pains to point out that everything they did was protected by the Constitution. British Muslims who carry placards exhorting their fellows to “kill those who insult the Prophet” loudly insist, without any apparent sense of irony, that they have a right to free speech when they do so.

But any speech that criticizes Islam is entirely another matter, and so we come to:

2.

Freedom of religion

A Muslim’s freedom of religion trumps the right to free expression of anyone who expresses a negative opinion of Islam. Such “insults” show disrespect, express “racism”, and are forms of “hate speech”.

The OIC has carefully constructed a well-funded initiative to criminalize criticism of Islam under the banner of human rights, using the principle of freedom of religion to insist on the rights of Muslims everywhere not to be offended.

Freedom of religion also requires that non-Muslims institute halal menus, install footbaths, allow the separation of the sexes, and supply all the other accoutrements that Muslims demand for the unhindered practice of their faith.

For Muslims, freedom of religion doesn’t mean being left alone to practice their faith as they see fit. It means an active accommodation by non-Muslims to whatever conditions Islam insists are necessary.

3.

The rights of women

Islam draws from the lexicon of Western feminists to codify the restrictions it places on women, according to both scripture and Muslim tradition.

The wearing of the headscarf then becomes a “right”, which just happens to be something that Muslim women want to do. The fact that women who dare to go unveiled are routinely beaten or killed — and that an awareness of this prospect helps women focus their minds on claiming their “right” — is ignored.

The strictures of sharia as they apply to women — whether they concern the veil, marriage, divorce, child custody, or ownership of property — are recast as the “rights” of women.

Pliant Muslim spokeswomen routinely assert their right to be treated as inferiors by custom and under the law.

The last of these items is demonstrated by the gradual evolution of a woman’s “right” to wear the hijab. The boiling of this particular frog begins with innocuous assertions of freedom of choice.

Responding to Jasser’s call for reform, [Rep. Keith] Ellison launched into a tirade. “I think you give people license for bigotry,” Ellison told [Zuhdi] Jasser. “I think people who want to engage in nothing less than Muslim-hating really love you a lot because you give them freedom to do that. You say, ‘yeah, go get after them.’“

[…]

Muslims must “stand against” extremist members of their faith, Ellison said. But he seemed more threatened by Jasser. “Now is somebody going to snatch my 13-year-old daughter’s hijab off, call her a horrible name, spit on her because of something that you said, Dr. Jasser, I worry about that,” he added.

Opposition to the veil is thus conflated with intended violence. And it’s true that real anti-hijab altercations have occurred. Back in 2004 CAIR complained to the authorities about an incident in Florida:

The Florida office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-FL) today called on law enforcement authorities to investigate an assault on a Muslim woman at a shopping mall in that state as a hate crime.

The victim, the owner of a jewelry kiosk at Westshore Mall in Tampa who wears an Islamic head scarf, says she was verbally and physically assaulted on Tuesday by three people who told her to “get out of (America)” and said her religion is “hateful and violent.” The assailants allegedly blamed the woman for the recent Madrid train bombings.

During the assault, one of the attackers allegedly grabbed the victim’s throat and attempted to remove her head scarf. The perpetrators fled when the victim ran to find mall security officers. Police are currently investigating the incident as a case of simple battery.

Islamists now frame the wearing of the hijab as a human rights issue, or even a feminist cause, so that the denial of the right to veil is made equivalent to traditional Leftist issues of gender inequality.

On an almost daily basis there are horrific stories pouring out of Tunisia about how the state police are ripping off the hijabs of women living there.

Some of these women, who are merely fulfilling their religious obligation to wear a hijab, have been assaulted, sexually abused and even locked up in prison by the authorities.

[…]

…I would ask them to read the harrowing report below before bellyaching to more journalists about their rights to parade around like Diana-look-a-likes.

It was written by an imam from Tunisia who had it smuggled out and given to me because he wants the world to know exactly what is happening to the women in his country.

Here is a snippet: “The police will randomly make their way into markets and rip the hijabs from women’s heads as well as take away any fabrics being sold to make hijabs…”

[…]

My appeal goes out to feminists of all faiths and no faith but please don’t think Muslim women are weak because the reality is that Islamic feminism can be just as radical as western feminism.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff reported here on Tuesday about her Counterjihad efforts at the OSCE Human Dimension Roundtable in Vienna. The topic of the meeting was “gender equality, with a special focus on combating violence against women”, and Elisabeth and her colleagues used the opportunity to raise the issue of violence against women under Islam.

Representatives from various Muslim NGOs were unhappy with this “hate speech”, and protested the interventions put forward by Pax Europa and Wiener Akademikerbund.

One of the protesting NGOs was COJEP (Conseil de la Jeunesse Pluriculturelle, Council of Multicultural Youth), an organization that has its roots in Millî Görüs, a militant Turkish Islamic movement that is popular among European Turks. COJEP responded with an intervention of its own, which was very revealing:

The second point: I am being victimized because I wear a headscarf. [The] Headscarf ban in some participant [sic] States is a form of Islamophobia and is felt as violence against Muslim women by most of them. Forbidding women to exercise their basic rights or barring entrance to public places unless they take off their headscarves is clearly a form of violence. […]

Discrimination against women wearing headscarf decreases their ability to become a part of society, hinders their personal development, prevents them from advancing their cultural knowledge, restricts them from obtaining financial independence, and puts a major obstacle in the way of their empowerment and advancement. [emphasis added]

The frog has now been completely boiled. Not only is the wearing of the hijab a woman’s right, but the denial of that right is a form of violence against women.

This is a shrewd move on the part of radical Islam. At one stroke they have co-opted the trendy rhetoric of domestic violence against women, whilst taking off the table any possible discussion of the real meaning the hijab.

Because the hijab means two things:

In the Muslim world, it signifies the inferior status of women under sharia, and the proprietary interest that men have in their women.

However, in a Western context the hijab has an additional meaning. Like the mosque and the call to prayer, it serves as a territorial marker. Veiled women walking with their men are the human equivalent of minarets. They are claiming the surrounding territory for the Ummah.

And Islam has now adroitly turned the hijab into a feminist issue, thereby ruling any counter-arguments off the turf. Western feminists are bizarrely eager to remain silent about — or even embrace — the inferior status of women under Islam, as symbolized by the veil.

Report on the OSCE Supplementary Human Rights Dimension Meeting

by Baron Bodissey

As we have reported previously (see the bottom of this post for links to previous articles), several representatives of the International Civil Liberties Alliance, Pax Europa, Mission Europa, and Wiener Akademikerbund attended last week’s Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting in Vienna of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The meeting’s theme was “Gender equality, with a special focus on combating violence against women”.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff represented Pax Europa and ICLA at the meeting. For those who missed it the first time, here is a video of her intervention concerning violence against women under Islam:

As I prepared for the OSCE meeting, I was fully aware that we would encounter strong opposition from most participants. However, the amount that we as a group were able to achieve took me by surprise — it was so much more than we would ever have thought possible.

That we were not applauded is obvious. Yet there were many in the room who covertly (or sometimes even overtly) agreed with us. We opened doors, doors that were previously shut and bolted. No one ever put the topic of Islam on the table, most likely out of fear and for the sake of political correctness. The OSCE is, after all, closely associated with the EU Fundamental Rights Agency and the Council of Europe. The former is responsible for some very restrictive laws that stifle freedom of opinion within the EU.

The events at the meeting can best be described by using the format of a drama in several acts.

Introduction:

The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), based in Warsaw, organizes three annual supplementary human dimension meetings. (For an explanation of the term “human dimension”, consult my earlier reports about the OSCE, which include a historical overview.) These meetings always take place in Vienna, whereas the annual conference is held in Warsaw.

The third and last meeting this year focused on the topic of gender equality, with a special focus on combating violence against women. A worthy topic, about which there is much to be said from our perspective.

The characters in this drama are numerous: First, the officials from ODIHR. They were in charge of accepting the submission of official papers with interventions and recommendations. We will return to them later.

Second, the moderators of the Civil Society Round Table and the Sessions, as well as the introducers who set the stage for each session by providing examples of good practices.

Third, the representatives of the participating States and associated States as well as international organizations.

And fourth, we, the representatives of the various more or less non-governmental organizations. It is worth mentioning that the OSCE is the only international organization where the representatives of civil society can discuss their issues on equal terms with participating States.

Act I — Rising action

November 5, 2009

The first event of the first day concerned civil society. The ODIHR organized a Civil Society Roundtable in order “to present the purpose and scope of the meeting; to discuss in more detail the role and contributions that civil society can make to the event; to give civil society representatives the opportunity to network and better coordinate their interventions and recommendations.”

The roundtable included a thorough presentation of the purpose, protocol, and good practices of roundtables and the contributions that NGOs can make, as well as participant introduction. The CSO (civil society) representatives then met in “three groups divided along the key themes of the meeting (Protection of Victims of Gender-based Violence; Investigation and Prosecution of Perpetrators of Violence against Women; and Prevention of Violence against Women) to discuss and share thoughts on their potential contributions.” I acted as rapporteur for the meeting on prevention of violence against women and was thus able to steer the talk in the right direction.

The three dominant topics of the discussion were education, family, and Islam. The key to raising awareness of violence against women is to start young, i.e. in schools. In addition, healthy families are able to teach children from childhood about how parents treat each other.

We added that Christian values are reflected in our secular laws, while violence stems from some religious groups. Mission Europa added that secular laws must be reflected in religious practices. A representative of a Kyrgyz NGO weighed in, saying that religion has the potential to be a positive force and that no religion promotes violence. There are, according to the Kyrgyz, some religions that show a large division between men and women.
– – – – – – – – –
A recommendation to the OSCE was put forward: There need to be clear wording in laws. Religion must never be an excuse for violence.

The Kyrgyz representative told the group about the difficulties they face when trying to connect with religious leaders. Kyrgyzstan is a predominantly Muslim country, where the main problem lies with the religious leaders, whose cooperation is urgently needed. Since 2008, religious leaders have been issuing marriage certificates which are not accepted by the secular government. The representative added also that civil marriage grants equal rights to both the husband and the wife, while the religious marriage does not. Rather, it focuses on and empowers men, as only men can declare divorce. The Kyrgyz representative’s recommendation to the OSCE: Civil law must supersede religious law.

The discussion was helpful for our cause because we were able to table the word Islam for the first time. Up until then, we had always shied away from using the I-word. It was always about “certain religious groups”. Mission Europa boldly asked the Kyrgyz representative what religion we were talking about, and — boom! — there it was. The I-word!

At the end of the civil society roundtable the three rapporteurs delivered their statements summing up the discussion. A delegate of a Bosnian NGO, Sabiha Husić, as well as a delegate from Kyrgyzstan took the floor and said: “We are against Islam being seen as the main source for violence, as Islam cherishes human values.” CARE Austria weighed in that we should not mix the perpetrator’s background with the act of violence itself. In their experience with migrants there is no religious background in violence.

The supplementary meeting was officially in session with the start of Session I focusing on the protection and assistance for victims of violence against women. The keynote address was delivered by Cheryl A. Thomas, Women’s Programme Director, Advocates for Human Rights, United States of America. Her speech was a long one, but mercifully contained points I was able to allude to during my first intervention:

Thank you for your very interesting speech. You mentioned the gap in procedures that a husband to kill his wife.

There is a similar case currently baffling authorities in the United States. Rifqa Bary, a convert from Islam to Christianity, had a long history of enduring systematic violence by her father, which is accepted as shariah-compliant. She managed to escape to Florida to live with foster parents. She was then ordered by the court to be returned to her violent parents. (I mentioned also that she is in child protection right now). If we are to protect women from this kind of violence, courts need to understand the threat emanating from religious laws, in particular the use of capital punishment for apostasy.

There was no reaction to my statement, but no need either.

Mission Europa took the floor with the following two recommendations to the Austrian government:

Mission Europe calls on the Austrian Government to take the necessary measures that Austrian laws prevail above religious principles. Contradictions to these laws reflected in Islam must not be allowed, as foreseen in the respective laws.

Mission Europe calls on the Austrian Government to establish the conditions for economic security in order to make gender equality a reality.

The introducer for Session II, which focused on the prosecution of perpetrators of violence against women, was Sonia Chirinos, Judge, General Council of the Judiciary, Spain. She spoke of her experiences in the judiciary, especially the problems regarding battered migrant women who withdraw their complaints against their abusive husbands.

These words provided an opportunity for Astrid Meyer-Schubert, representing the Wiener Akademikerbund, to present her intervention:

Regarding the basic questions of western civilization and its rule of law with special focus on the view of gender in religious communities, we recommend that participating States look into the practices of religious communities and whether their views of human rights and gender equality are constitutional.

For instance:

a)

What views of women’s rights is Female Genital Mutilation based on?

b)

What does the religious ruling on headscarves tell us about men and their views?

c)

What is the definition of female gender if it is not considered a legal person or its testimony in court counts only as half of that of a man?

These fundamental questions need to be asked. In order to successfully integrate religious communities into western civilization a very basic discussion on gender matters needs to take place.

In addition, religious communities should be required to indicate to what extent their image of women fits in with western civilization.

The judge replied: Her experience with religious communities as well as Roma and Sinti groups shows that Muslim women either withdraw their complaints or do not even bring their plight to the attention of the authorities.

Wiener Akademikerbund had yet another question in this regard:

If the state — in capacity of you as a judge for gender-specific violence — already intrudes into the family, like you have just described, it seems to me that the state should also concentrate on Roma and Sinti as well as the Muslim religious group. Women from those religious groups can only be helped if these religious groups are willing to cooperate with the state. The state should put more legal pressure on these patriarchally-oriented religious groups.

The representative of Morocco replied:

We should generalize these matters and we vigorously condemn this statement equating violence with Islamic religion.

Act 3 — Climax

The last session focused on prevention of violence against women. Mr. Vladimir Korotenko, NGO Social Technologies Agency, Kyrgyzstan, was the introducer of this session, reporting on good practices from his country and thereby unwittingly providing the perfect argument for me to take the floor. I was one of the first speakers on this topic and my intervention was explosive:

Thank you for a very powerful presentation. You mentioned the strain of migration in your report. Here in Europe we also face a huge influx of migrants, including many of the Muslim faith.

One issue that has been left out until now, it seems to me, is violence against women that is backed by principles of the Muslim faith. I do not have to tell you about the honor killings in Germany, Denmark, and the United Kingdom, among other countries; as well as forced marriages, in addition to the Koranic verse 4:34, which says — and I quote -:

You have rights over your wives and they have rights over you. You have the right that they should not defile your bed and that they should not behave with open unseemliness. If they do, God allows you to put them in separate rooms and to beat them but not with severity. If they refrain from these things, they have the right to their food and clothing with kindness. Lay injunctions on women kindly, for they are prisoners with you having no control of their own persons. (Guillaume’s translation, p. 651) (Ibn Ishaq)

Why are not discussing this issue here and at other occasions in a depth that does justice to this problem?

I therefore recommend that ODIHR urgently start a working group on violence against women in Islam in order to find out how to best approach this in the context of the OSCE human dimension.

It was out on the table. Let’s deal with the problem right here, right now. No more pussy-footing.

Mission Europa upped the ante by adding this:

I would like to refer to the statement I made yesterday in order to clarify that fundamental human rights must be the supreme norm for a peaceful coexistence both in the public and the private sphere. In this regard, the participating States must ensure that contradictory Islamic norms are not acceptable, which would then result in peaceful coexistence.

There were very few pleased faces in the plenary, though I did notice the introducer nodding a few times during my intervention. The Azerbaijani parliamentary delegate next to me was fuming, seething, about to explode.

Mr. Korotenko, the introducer, replied that I addressed an important area and supported the idea of setting up a working group. However, he added that marriage has noting to do with religion, but rather whose rights are being infringed when there is religious marriage only.

The German OSCE representative pointed to the universality of human rights. She was unhappy about this discussion as this venue was not the right place to discuss religion.

The moderator, Ms. Jamila Seftaoui, Senior Advisor on Gender Issues, OSCE Secretariat, snubbed my statement: “I am unhappy with the interventions as the monocausality [of blaming Islam for violence against women] does not do justice to the problem.”

Since we were realistic about our chances of replying to this, we drafted the following response for the OSCE’s official records:

By mentioning religion as being a source of violence against women, we did not mean to single out Islam as being a monocausality for violence against women. However, we see Islam as one of the causes of violence against women, which has to be investigated in line with fundamental human rights and in accordance with the respective convention of the Council of Europe.

In this line, Mission Europa supports the recommendation by Pax Europa for the institution of a working group investigating violence against women in Islam.

Mission Europa wants to clarify that none of the NGOs as indicated by COJEP ever asked for an oath to be sworn by Muslims not to be terrorists.

Later on, Mrs. Basibuyuk Zeyneb, representing COJEP, weighed in:

I would like to make two points. I deplore the hate speech against Islam which should not take place and which is not surprising since this so-called NGO in July proposed that Muslims sign the Charter of Muslim Understanding, asking us to distance ourselves from certain suras of the Quran and accusing Muslims of being terrorists.

The second point: I am being victimized because I wear a headscarf. [The] Headscarf ban in some participant [sic] States is a form of Islamophobia and is felt as violence against Muslim women by most of them. Forbidding women to exercise their basic rights or barring entrance to public places unless they take off their headscarves is clearly a form of violence. […]

Discrimination against women wearing headscarf decreases their ability to become a part of society, hinders their personal development, prevents them from advancing their cultural knowledge, restricts them from obtaining financial independence, and puts a major obstacle in the way of their empowerment and advancement. […]

Session III finished after more interventions which no longer concerned us. A staring contest between the COJEP representative and myself made the rest of the session more interesting. The lady was not pleased and left immediately following the closing of Session III.

I was stopped during the short break between Session III and the closing session by Ms. Anna-Lena Svensson-McCarthy who represented the World Organization Against Torture. Ms. Svensson-McCarthy was visibly upset: “I just have to tell you how offended I was by your words attacking the Muslims. I am a Christian and we should not forget about the many children who are abused by the priests.” I told her that I am offended by the Islamic teachings every day. In any case, priests abusing children do not find the command to do so in the Bible, but abuse them despite the teachings of the Bible. Muslim perpetrators commit violence because they are commanded to do so by their religious teachings. We continued our discussion for a while, particularly about the 84 shariah courts in the UK, and at the end she told me, “I can see where you’re coming from.” I can only hope she took something with her from our talk.

Final scene: Conclusion

The closing session included reports from the working session moderators as well as comments from the floor.

While the moderators from the first and second sessions included some of our remarks and interventions in their report, Ms. Jamila Seftaoui, the moderator of Session III, painfully ignored the discussion about the religious aspect of violence against women. One would have thought it never took place. What do I make of that? Simple: The OSCE is also heavily infused by political correctness, perhaps less than other forums, but it’s there. The reactions from other participants were as I had expected.

The closing comments from floor, however, were most interesting. While some representatives from international organizations like IOM (International Organization for Migration) denied that FGM has anything to do with Islam, for which she was applauded by the plenary, the Austrian representative surprisingly backed the Counterjihad:

I object to a certain debate culture which is employed more and more often by a certain group of participants. Disagreement with someone else’s opinion is immediately denounced as hate speech. The accusation of hate speech is a serious one. We have been dealing intensively with this phenomenon in these human dimension meetings for many years. We take part in these human dimension meetings precisely because we need to find solutions to the current grave problems. The localization and identification of the problems and their implications are an important prerequisite to finding a solution.

Now if a certain negative social behavior — and here I am alluding to this meeting’s topic — like FGM and forced marriages, is manifested only in very specific religious and ethnic migrant groups, it must be possible to identify this group. This is not stereotyping, but a fact, and definitely not hate speech.

To conclude, educating female milk farmers in [the Austrian state of] Styria on the dangers of FGM will not be helpful.

[The Ambassador was alluding to the frequent call for education in order to combat violence against women.]

These clear and politically incorrect words were, in turn, applauded by our small group and some of the Catholic representatives. It was interesting to note that, in general, the Catholic bloc is slowly starting to support us.

The meeting was then adjourned. I suppose there was also a collective sigh of relief that the Counterjihad group was finally silenced.

I must mention that I was informed off the record that our written interventions and recommendations were close to not being accepted by ODIHR.

Censorship?

To sum up: this last supplementary meeting in 2009 was a successful one from our point of view, as was the entire year. We took part in three OSCE conferences and were able either to steer the debate in our direction or prevent certain poisonous statements from becoming consensus. Our groups have become visible in the international arena, and we are now no longer marginalized, but a (small) force to contend with.

One issue that has been left out until now, it seems to me, is violence against women that is backed by principles of the Muslim faith. I do not have to tell you about the honor killings in Germany, Denmark, and the United Kingdom, among other countries; as well as forced marriages, in addition to the Koranic verse 4:34, which says – and I quote -:

You have rights over your wives and they have rights over you. You have the right that they should not defile your bed and that they should not behave with open unseemliness. If they do, God allows you to put them in separate rooms and to beat them but not with severity. If they refrain from these things, they have the right to their food and clothing with kindness. Lay injunctions on women kindly, for they are prisoners with you having no control of their own persons. (Guillaume’s translation, p. 651) (Ibn Ishaq)

Why are not discussing this issue here and at other occasions in a depth that does justice to this problem?